> Christian M.: > Shouldn't it be possible to configure the store? Yes, it definitely should be. My examples do not aspire to be complete :) . However we should also provide a way to configure the default store on both Context and Route level.
> Christian M.: > By default (if no message store instance is configured) we could use a > memory message store. Good point. > Raul: > How about making the Claim Check EIP Expression-Aware? We must support it for sure. However if no expression is specified, then we should rollback to the default header. Convention of configuration FTW :) . > Christian O.: > it is probably a matter of taste, but I would rather > register a (global) default message store with the CamelContext > rather than in the route We can support both, where route store would override the one defined for the context. And of course particular EIP call (like claimCheck(dataStore)) would override default stores. > not set the CLAIM_CHECK header again (what for?) It's just an example. If by default ClaimCheck would look for the claim id in the Exchange.CLAIM_CHECK header, then you need to set in the reclaiming route :) . > One issue with such a claim check is that you should stay in > control about what is temporarily pushed to the store (e.g. the > body, or a specific header, or...). Yeah, but I think that by default we should store the body. > Later when you claim back the data, the > operation must be basically reversed. Then, who is in charge to > remember the destination - the claimCheck/claim EIP pair or the > developer? Actually we don't have to reverse the operation. You can claimCheck the body and then pick it up to the header. I think that control over this should be delegated to the developer, with body being the default option. Best regards. -- Henryk Konsek http://henryk-konsek.blogspot.com
